4 ms·

It is being argued that these losses aren't just vanilla trading losses. They arose due to technical glitches at NASDAQ which led to quotes being unavailable, d

by antrix 14y ago

It is being argued that these losses aren't just vanilla trading losses. They arose due to technical glitches at NASDAQ which led to quotes being unavailable, delayed processing order cancel requests, missing acks, etc. Essentially, traders couldn't act in time to react to the market due to NASDAQ's troubles. Edit: I should also add that Citi, Citadel, etc. were acting as market makers - they don't have the option of holding the stock for recovery as others in this thread suggest.

astrodust 14y ago
Are we supposed to feel sorry for the poor market maker? They were trying to skim an enormous profit and ended up with a small loss. Ç'est la vie.
- antrix 14y ago
  One corporation is claiming losses from another corporation for services not rendered as expected. What's the outrage for?
- sseveran 14y ago
  When AWS goes down people get angry. When NASDAQ goes down different people get angry.
WarDekar 14y ago
I'm not sure I have any sympathy even if NASDAQ had trading issues- do they actually guarantee trades go through and you're informed within a certain period of time? From what I've seen and read, it boils down to a bunch of people claiming they lost out because the price didn't balloon on the first day of trading. Yet, you know, it's still down >15% in the week after that. How can anyone that bought last Friday possibly claim they got screwed in this matter? Unless NASDAQ has terms that say that future trades can be guaranteed, I don't see any legitimate beef here.